Preakness Stakes Shocker

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
G

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
2,985
1,813
113
The owner has said that they will not run disqualified Kentucky Derby first past the post Maximum Security in the Preakness Stakes.

The official line is that there is no point running because the Triple Crown is not at stake now and that running again two weeks after the Derby is not a good idea when the horse can't achieve the magic hat trick.

Sounds more like toys out of the pram to me. If it were my horse I would want him to go out there and prove a point by putting them to the sword and then hopefully landing the Belmont as well.

Seems a bit like robbing the fans and racegoers just because you have taken the huff.

It may have been harsh but what's done is done and it's unsporting and selfish to take this standpoint. The sense of sportsmanship should come first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonic
I don't see anything wrong with not racing the horse as it is only 2 weeks after a hard race. But to imply that he would have run him had there been a chance of the triple crown doesn't sound like putting the horse first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwanHills, Denny4 and Cyclonic
They probably feel a little bitter and its difficult not to blame them. The 2 week turn around is really tough and with the triple crown no longer a viable proposition I can see the point of view. If you win leg one then of course you give it a try but they didn't so missing the Preakness isnt really an outrageous slur to sportsmanship. The triple crown is a brutal test for a horse so why do it if you can't win it?

In terms of a sportsmanship point of view I find the actions of connections of Country House pretty appalling myself. Yes by the letter of the law the disqualification might have been justified. However connections of the interfered horses didn't raise the protest. Country House wasn't interfered with but they decided to take a punt to try and
Win by default. The politicking by connections whilst the decision was being made was seriously in un-edifying. The celebratory scenes after the stewards result were announced left me cold. Just my opinion though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwanHills, Ron, OddDog and 2 others
Furiousiceman said:
They probably feel a little bitter and its difficult not to blame them. The 2 week turn around is really tough and with the triple crown no longer a viable proposition I can see the point of view. If you win leg one then of course you give it a try but they didn't so missing the Preakness isnt really an outrageous slur to sportsmanship. The triple crown is a brutal test for a horse so why do it if you can't win it?

In terms of a sportsmanship point of view I find the actions of connections of Country House pretty appalling myself. Yes by the letter of the law the disqualification might have been justified. However connections of the interfered horses didn't raise the protest. Country House wasn't interfered with but they decided to take a punt to try and
Win by default. The politicking by connections whilst the decision was being made was seriously in un-edifying. The celebratory scenes after the stewards result were announced left me cold. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...
Agree. Mind you it would be easy to win the Triple Crown if the only entry was the winner of the first leg <whistle>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendel
The Triple Crown spacing is what it is. The whole US racing with chemicals being used to mask physical problems that can result from the harsh regime is a big turn off for me. Owners have a choice whether to expose their horses to that system or not and I think it is false concern for a horse in saying that it is a tough ask in two weeks, when you would have been in like Flint and running the horse had your horse kept the Derby. I just don't buy the faux welfare angle being trotted out.

If we are to say that it is tough to run in the Preakness after the Derby, then none of those who ran in the Kentucky, other than the horse awarded the race, should be running in the Preakness because he is the only one who can achieve the Triple Crown now.

The connections of Country House and their antics would only make me more determined to go out there and let my horse ram it down their throats, whilst also ensuring that their horse would NOT land the Triple Crown. Connections of Country House are probably delighted that the biggest danger in the Preakness will not be running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back